What did they mean by this?

[DarkBlue]

The German focus tree is solid, works and is probably the hardest to get right, because all major events require Germany as catalyst. I'd say they need a rework the least from a technical standpoint.

Japan, though? It really needs it, desperately, like yesterday.

That being said, from a standpoint of popularity the clear choice is Germany, the one that needs it the least. Funny how things sometimes work.

IMO a good focus tree could also increase play rate. I always want to play Japan more but the bad focus tree & boring naval mechanics turn me off.

In terms of "how much better can you make the game with the same amount of work", Japan has to be the pick. Germany needs some polishing and lengthening of the focus tree, but it is still solid as you say.

 

[Xephos Demonslayer]

Turkey is definitely broken, full stop (though not as bad as Bulgaria being able to join another faction and un-puppet itself with a single focus while being my puppet), Germany can definitely use some love (among a LOT of other things, it would be really nice that if I spent 400pp on Dutch Trade Pressure, that they would actually cave to me when I'm 120 influence ahead of the British, even if Historical is on, because otherwise there's 0 point in pressuring them at all), and Japan... man, it's just sad compared to more "modern" trees (and also the alt-hist paths could use a full overhaul)

 

[Androbey]

The main problem with Pacific War is that there were only 1 decision that IMO dictated the course of that theatre.
The decision that Japan would strike south first. This immediately brought them into conflict with the "Paper Tiger" of the USA.
and then because of that decision and the overreaction to the Dolittle Raid, the "Midway Miracle' happened, which effectively neutered the IJN's Carrier Air Arm.
Before Midway, it could be claimed that Japan had the BEST Carrier fleet in the world. If the Shōkaku and Zuikaku were not used in the Coral Sea and were instead grouped with the Kido Butai as the 6 ship TF that it was supposed to be, the outcome could have been much different.

Even though Japan planned for a Decisive ala Port Arthur, they had a tendency to split their forces into side objectives.

 

[Eruth]

The main problem with Pacific War is that there were only 1 decision that IMO dictated the course of that theatre.
The decision that Japan would strike south first. This immediately brought them into conflict with the "Paper Tiger" of the USA.
and then because of that decision and the overreaction to the Dolittle Raid, the "Midway Miracle' happened, which effectively neutered the IJN's Carrier Air Arm.
Before Midway, it could be claimed that Japan had the BEST Carrier fleet in the world. If the Shōkaku and Zuikaku were not used in the Coral Sea and were instead grouped with the Kido Butai as the 6 ship TF that it was supposed to be, the outcome could have been much different.

Even though Japan planned for a Decisive ala Port Arthur, they had a tendency to split their forces into side objectives.

Japan could never have won the pacific war. Even if they take midway and sink the USA carriers, so what? The war just lasts an extra year or two. Japan did not have the transport fleet necessary to sustain their economy and a pacific spanning war; they did not have the industry necessary to keep pace with American ship and plan production; they did not have the population to replenish their losses.
The only decision that ‘mattered’ in the pacific war was the one to start it on the first place.

 

[DarkBlue]

Japan could never have won the pacific war. Even if they take midway and sink the USA carriers, so what? The war just lasts an extra year or two. Japan did not have the transport fleet necessary to sustain their economy and a pacific spanning war; they did not have the industry necessary to keep pace with American ship and plan production; they did not have the population to replenish their losses.
The only decision that ‘mattered’ in the pacific war was the one to start it on the first place.

You are not wrong but this is a game and cannot be 100% realistic, so we got to give Japan *some hope*.

For example let say Japan is able to sweep across the pacific within a specific timeframe, then maybe the US has a big hit on War Support & when it is low enough the US might quit?

But in the current version I can also choose to NOT fight the US, so that the IJN can overwhelm Asia easily but still get all the resources I want. I think the devs need to simulate why would the US join and what would give Japan the incentive to preemptively attack American fleet in the game.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

You are not wrong but this is a game and cannot be 100% realistic, so we got to give Japan *some hope*.

Anyway economic determinism ins't realism, its anacronism.
Give Japan a "hope" is realism.

 

[FlinzP]

Japan could never have won the pacific war. Even if they take midway and sink the USA carriers, so what? The war just lasts an extra year or two. Japan did not have the transport fleet necessary to sustain their economy and a pacific spanning war; they did not have the industry necessary to keep pace with American ship and plan production; they did not have the population to replenish their losses.
The only decision that ‘mattered’ in the pacific war was the one to start it on the first place.

You are not wrong but this is a game and cannot be 100% realistic, so we got to give Japan *some hope*.

For example let say Japan is able to sweep across the pacific within a specific timeframe, then maybe the US has a big hit on War Support & when it is low enough the US might quit?

But in the current version I can also choose to NOT fight the US, so that the IJN can overwhelm Asia easily but still get all the resources I want. I think the devs need to simulate why would the US join and what would give Japan the incentive to preemptively attack American fleet in the game.

All this are getting little off from topic but anyway:
Both correct. Japan did not stand chance even if it destroyed most capital ships and carriers that USA got. They just had industry to make so many more. USA submarines alone were ripping Japanese ships which was devastating. But again this is not historical simulation even so history gives us frames. Even Germany lost war with starting it. There was just no way Germany was going to outproduce or fight for victory unless USSR and Allied nations simply just refused to fight or were full of fools. It is common to see people talking how x nations could have won with better tactics or if some event did not happen. Sure those could have impacted about losses or how war could have been dragged longer. Production was key to victory, Germany and Japan could have not kept up with it. Their enemies had own issues to overcome but nothing compared to that.

So yeah it is good for game to give options for players to try overcome different challanges instead just giving railed simulation. Doesn't mean it should be easy but possible anyway.

 

[DarkBlue]

All this are getting little off from topic but anyway:
Both correct. Japan did not stand chance even if it destroyed most capital ships and carriers that USA got. They just had industry to make so many more. USA submarines alone were ripping Japanese ships which was devastating. But again this is not historical simulation even so history gives us frames. Even Germany lost war with starting it. There was just no way Germany was going to outproduce or fight for victory unless USSR and Allied nations simply just refused to fight or were full of fools. It is common to see people talking how x nations could have won with better tactics or if some event did not happen. Sure those could have impacted about losses or how war could have been dragged longer. Production was key to victory, Germany and Japan could have not kept up with it. Their enemies had own issues to overcome but nothing compared to that.

So yeah it is good for game to give options for players to try overcome different challanges instead just giving railed simulation. Doesn't mean it should be easy but possible anyway.

Well, if USA were strictly neutral then the gap in industrial capacity is not that great. Also, Britain almost bankrupted irl around 1941, if I recall correctly.

So we really need to create an in-game reason of why would USA want to help, to the extent that Japan would consider a conflict with US navy inevitable.

(Also I wouldn’t mind the devs buffing American industry a bit)

 

[Eruth]

You are not wrong but this is a game and cannot be 100% realistic, so we got to give Japan *some hope*.

For example let say Japan is able to sweep across the pacific within a specific timeframe, then maybe the US has a big hit on War Support & when it is low enough the US might quit?

But in the current version I can also choose to NOT fight the US, so that the IJN can overwhelm Asia easily but still get all the resources I want. I think the devs need to simulate why would the US join and what would give Japan the incentive to preemptively attack American fleet in the game.

Anyway economic determinism ins't realism, its anacronism.
Give Japan a "hope" is realism.

All this are getting little off from topic but anyway:
Both correct. Japan did not stand chance even if it destroyed most capital ships and carriers that USA got. They just had industry to make so many more. USA submarines alone were ripping Japanese ships which was devastating. But again this is not historical simulation even so history gives us frames. Even Germany lost war with starting it. There was just no way Germany was going to outproduce or fight for victory unless USSR and Allied nations simply just refused to fight or were full of fools. It is common to see people talking how x nations could have won with better tactics or if some event did not happen. Sure those could have impacted about losses or how war could have been dragged longer. Production was key to victory, Germany and Japan could have not kept up with it. Their enemies had own issues to overcome but nothing compared to that.

So yeah it is good for game to give options for players to try overcome different challanges instead just giving railed simulation. Doesn't mean it should be easy but possible anyway.

To be clear I wasn't arguing that Hoi should accurately model Japan's impossible situation, I just got ADHDed into talking about history.

 

[Ossiv]

All this are getting little off from topic but anyway:
Both correct. Japan did not stand chance even if it destroyed most capital ships and carriers that USA got. They just had industry to make so many more. USA submarines alone were ripping Japanese ships which was devastating. But again this is not historical simulation even so history gives us frames. Even Germany lost war with starting it. There was just no way Germany was going to outproduce or fight for victory unless USSR and Allied nations simply just refused to fight or were full of fools. It is common to see people talking how x nations could have won with better tactics or if some event did not happen. Sure those could have impacted about losses or how war could have been dragged longer. Production was key to victory, Germany and Japan could have not kept up with it. Their enemies had own issues to overcome but nothing compared to that.

So yeah it is good for game to give options for players to try overcome different challanges instead just giving railed simulation. Doesn't mean it should be easy but possible anyway.

Without the lend-lease and US bombings on German industry Germany might have won the Soviet Union, even Stalin admitted it. If the USA stayed neutral, the UK alone could not bomb Germany day and night and they also could not do better invasion than Dieppe without the USA.

Declaring war to the USA was extremely stupid by Hitler. Roosevelt would have had hard time to convince the congress to go to war in Europe instead of concentrating to the Pacific after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

Declaring war to the USA was extremely stupid by Hitler. Roosevelt would have had hard time to convince the congress to go to war in Europe instead of concentrating to the Pacific after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

USA the king of false flags dont need convince anyone. The German dude just formalized a already existing state of war.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

Well, if USA were strictly neutral then the gap in industrial capacity is not that great. Also, Britain almost bankrupted irl around 1941, if I recall correctly.

So we really need to create an in-game reason of why would USA want to help, to the extent that Japan would consider a conflict with US navy inevitable.

(Also I wouldn’t mind the devs buffing American industry a bit)

the plot twist is: USA was never neutral.

USA was already a imperialistic power, the collision with other imperialistics powers would be innevitable, just a matter of when.

 

[DarkBlue]

the plot twist is: USA was never neutral.

USA was already a imperialistic power, the collision with other imperialistics powers would be innevitable, just a matter of when.

That’s why we need to fix the diplomatic build-up before the Pacific War. Currently the game does not model this.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Japan could never have won the pacific war. Even if they take midway and sink the USA carriers, so what? The war just lasts an extra year or two. Japan did not have the transport fleet necessary to sustain their economy and a pacific spanning war; they did not have the industry necessary to keep pace with American ship and plan production; they did not have the population to replenish their losses.
The only decision that ‘mattered’ in the pacific war was the one to start it on the first place.

I agree that's true, but with a very big caveat. They might have won the Pacific War if it had only been against the Netherlands and the UK, not the USA (and its Filipino puppet). You can argue that is not the Pacific War, but it's a Great Power war in the western Pacific so regardless of the name is does the job for HoI4 purposes. The game allows for this outcome, of course.

 

[Findell_HOI]

Japan could never have won the pacific war. Even if they take midway and sink the USA carriers, so what? The war just lasts an extra year or two. Japan did not have the transport fleet necessary to sustain their economy and a pacific spanning war; they did not have the industry necessary to keep pace with American ship and plan production; they did not have the population to replenish their losses.
The only decision that ‘mattered’ in the pacific war was the one to start it on the first place.

If they did a large invasion of all the us islands as soon as war was delcared except for hawaii it might have worked but they had no way to do it.

 

[Ossiv]

If they did a large invasion of all the us islands as soon as war was delcared except for hawaii it might have worked but they had no way to do it.

The Japanese could take Pacific Islands, but to win the war they would have needed to land on the continental USA and fight there. Even Yamamoto, who had lived in the USA, told them that was impossible.

Speculating, I can think of the Japanese, if they very lucky, maybe advancing in the Summer to Alaska through the Aleutian islands, shorter "jumps" there than landing to the US West Coast. But fight in Alaska when Winter comes would not have been fun for them.

Maybe the best result the Japanese could get would have been to fight to a standstill and get some kind of negotiated peace.

 

[Eruth]

I agree that's true, but with a very big caveat. They might have won the Pacific War if it had only been against the Netherlands and the UK, not the USA (and its Filipino puppet). You can argue that is not the Pacific War, but it's a Great Power war in the western Pacific so regardless of the name is does the job for HoI4 purposes. The game allows for this outcome, of course.

I was using the pacific war to refer to a USA Japan war; I guess a war with European powers could technically be considered pacific due to Indonesia, New Guinea, and Australia, but it doesn’t hit the same.

If they did a large invasion of all the us islands as soon as war was delcared except for hawaii it might have worked but they had no way to do it.

“They couldn’t do it” exactly my point. Japan never had the resources to win the war. Even if they had taken all the pacific islands they wouldn’t have won; the USA managed to invade North Africa across the Atlantic, if they wanted to win they could have retaken even Hawaii (though admittedly it would have been harder than torch ).

 

[DarkBlue]

I was using the pacific war to refer to a USA Japan war; I guess a war with European powers could technically be considered pacific due to Indonesia, New Guinea, and Australia, but it doesn’t hit the same.

Japan did not want US territory per se, but it was merely a preemptive strike. What interested Japan was the oil & rubber held by the Brit and the Dutch, so that Japan had to steal clay from them after the oil embargo. (Of course the US scrap metal embargo earlier also hurt.)

 

[Adonnus100]

The Darkest Hour Japan AI is semi competent. At least they end up taking Philippines and Indonesia most of the time. The amphibious warfare in the Pacific is generally tough for the AI to pull off correctly but they manage to be a threat before the US comes bearing down and naval invades everything from Midway to Tokyo.

Basically more than the focuses my point is the most important thing is to get the Japan AI to a point where it can

1. Stockpile divisions and squadrons in Vietnam, ready to attack all of SE Asia simultaneously, and at the same time invade Wake/Midway or at least try to
2. Reliably use its fleet to try to win large naval battles against the USA in the months and years afterwards.

Also, being able to invade Burma and then India. So basically Japan has a lot of complicated stuff for the AI to pull off to make it mostly historical.

 

[Eruth]

Japan did not want US territory per se, but it was merely a preemptive strike. What interested Japan was the oil & rubber held by the Brit and the Dutch, so that Japan had to steal clay from them after the oil embargo. (Of course the US scrap metal embargo earlier also hurt.)

I know, and don’t see how this is relevant